New Haven Independent

In a ruling Wednesday evening, Arterton denied a motion by eight black firefighters seeking to halt fire department promotions pending further examination of the racial biases of the test.

Click here to read her ruling.

The firefighters, led by Gary Tinney, sought to halt promotions from two 2003 captain and lieutenant exams, claiming the tests were biased against African-Americans. The firefighters argued that the test had never been examined for racial biases, and had disparate impact on blacks.

They sought to intervene with the Ricci v. DeStefano case brought by the so-called New Haven 20, a group of mostly white firefighters who filed suit in 2004 when the City of New Haven tossed out the test results because blacks performed poorly.

It was clear last week that their effort had failed, when Arterton, following instructions from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June, ordered 14 of the New Haven 20 to be promoted to lieutenant and captain. The city made those promotions Tuesday.

Arterton’s three-page ruling Wednesday gave a reason why she wouldn’t let the black firefighters stand in the way. She said the U.S. Supreme Court gave strict orders to promote eligible plaintiffs. The scope of the case does not extend to determining the validity of the test, she argued.

Meanwhile, the case of Michael Briscoe, another black firefighter, is still pending. Briscoe sued the city in October arguing that he was unfairly denied promotion because of the way the city scored the 2003 exam. On Tuesday, he filed a motion to intervene in the Ricci case. Responses to his motion are due on Dec. 22.

Damages

Also Wednesday, Arterton granted the New Haven 20 an extension of time to tackle the big unknown factor in the case: The damages the plaintiffs may be entitled to. The original suit in 2004 called for compensatory and punitive damages, both of which are determined by jurors.

It could prove a very costly question for the city.

Arterton set the following deadlines: The plaintiffs must come up with a proposal detailing the “scope and nature of the damages to which plaintiffs are entitled” by Dec. 17. The city must respond by Jan. 12.

Past stories on fire department promotions and the Ricci case:

• Board Promotes 14 Firefighters
• Judge Orders Firefighter Promotions
• Black Firefighters Seek To Halt Promotions
• Promotions Pitched In Ricci Case
• Ricci’s Back In Court
• After Ricci Ruling, Black Firefighter Sues City
• Ricci Takes The Stand
• In D.C., Two Latino Views On Sotomayor
• Dems Swing Back On Ricci
• ConnectiCOSH Kibosh
• Sotomayor: I Didn’t “Hide” Ricci Case
• Is Ricci Being Smeared?
• Sotomayor Speaks On Ricci
• Ricci Takes Center Stage
• Watley: I’d Have Promoted Ricci
• Firebirds, NAACP: Ricci Won’t Stop Us
• “If You Work Hard You Can Succeed In America”
• Was He The Culprit?
• Supreme Court Overturns City On Ricci
• On Page 25, A Hint
• Minority Firefighters Vow Post-Ricci Unity
• Ricci Ruling Won’t End Quest
• Ricci, Sotomayor Brand DeStefano
• Firefighter Case Reveals Surprise Obama Stand
• Justices Zero In On Race-Based Distinctions
• Rights Groups Back Black Firefighters
• The Supreme Stakes: Title VII’s Future
• Dobbs v. Bolden
• Latino Group Backs White Firefighters
• Black Firefighters: Ricci Case Poses Grave Threat
• NAACP Backs City In Firefighter Case
• Paging Justice Kennedy
• Fire Inspectors Promoted
• Fire Inspector List Approved
• U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Firefighters’ Case
• Fire Promotions Examined in Supreme Court